Allowed

Raj Kumar Bhatnagar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC14 Oct 2020CRLP/10958/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that legal aid is a constitutional right for accused persons. It directed the Sessions Judge to provide legal aid to the petitioners. Furthermore, the court granted protection under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. to petitioners during the investigation period.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Sessions Judge to provide legal aid; granting protection under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. during investigation.

Raj Kumar Bhatnagar and 2 Others Vs State… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10958 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Bhatnagar And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Yadav,Jai Prakash Prasad Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rakesh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Gambhir Singh, learned AGA.

¶6

Petitioners have filed this petition challenging an FIR dated 23.09.2020 lodged by respondent no. 4 as Case Crime No. 1314 of 2020, under Sections 147, 504, 452, 323, 307, 506 IPC at Police Station-Civil Lines, District-Moradabad.

¶7

Petitioner's contention is though alleged incident took place at about 5 pm, but FIR has been lodged at 9:47 pm i.e., after 4 hours of delay whereas distance of the police station from the place of alleged incident is about 3 kms. It is further submitted that respondent no. 4 was examined by the doctor on the same date at about 8:25 pm whereas in the FIR, it is mentioned that respondent no. 4 was not examined by the doctor. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that respondent no. 4 is an 'Advocate' by profession and petitioner is not getting legal aid at Moradabad because of the influence of respondent no. 4, respondent no. 4 is capable of manufacturing a fake injury report in collusion with police and doctor. In the FIR, it is mentioned that no medical was conducted but the fact is that respondent no. 4 was medically examined at 8:25 pm and as per the opinion of the doctor, four injuries were found on the body of the respondent no. 4 caused by hard and blunt object. He was directed to be subjected to X-ray for ascertaining the nature of injury nos. 2 and 3. It is submitted that no X-ray report is on record. It is finally submitted that petitioner no. 1 is holder of the disputed land in question on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 19.07.2005 executed by land lady namely, Km. Verma, but respondent no. 4 got executed a registered Will dated 17.12.2013 in his favour without cancellation of the registered sale deed dated 19.07.2005 before any competent court of law and with a malafide intention to convert a civil dispute into criminal, this FIR has been lodged using dominant position of respondent no. 4 as an 'Advocate'.

¶8

In the aforesaid backdrop, learned counsel for petitioners submits that as lawyers are on rampage, petitioner has been denied access to engagement of any lawyer and there is threat to the life of petitioners in case they approaches the District Court for obtaining bail.

¶9

Sri Gambhir Singh, learned AGA, in turn, submits that contents of the FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence and therefore, this Court should not exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to quash said FIR alleged to be forged, fabricated and concocted.

¶10

After hearing arguments of learned counsel for parties and going through the record, this Court is of opinion that legal aid is the constitutional right available to accused. Such legal right cannot be taken away as has been upheld in the case of Mohammad Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2012) 9 SCC 1 .This view has been reiterated in Rajoo @ Ramakant vs. State of M.P., (2012) 8 SCC 553.

¶11

It is also not in dispute that petitioner can approach the High Court directly seeking bail if there is threat to his life and liberty, in case, they approach the District Court. This ratio of law is available in the case of Sundeep Kumar Bafna vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2014) 16 SCC 623.

¶12

In view of the aforesaid legal position, it is directed that in case petitioners approaches the Sessions Judge concerned, then it would be incumbent upon him to provide legal aid to the petitioners.

¶13

The petition is disposed of on above terms.

¶14

Till investigation is completed, petitioners will be afforded protection under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

¶15

The party shall file a computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (s) (preferably Aadhar Card).

¶16

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶17

Order Date :- 14.10.2020

¶18

Vikram/-

¶19

Digitally signed by Justice Pankaj Digitally signed by Justice Vivek Naqvi Agarwal Date: 2020.10.21 15:26:40 IST Date: 2020.10.21 15:28:23 IST Reason: Document Owner Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Allahabad

Raj Kumar Bhatnagar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Bhatnagar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abbas Ali Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Monika Masih Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Dal Chand Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Lovely and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ilu Kumar @ Ravi Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sudhakar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others